One popular discussion among evolutionists involves a renewal of the
bogus nature-nurture debate. By adding genetics to natural selection,
neo-Darwinists rectified Darwin’s macrocosmic error. Evolution in biology is the
result of interactions between the organism (with all its genes) and its
environment. Now comes two folks (Shapiro and Newman) who think that evolution
is driven mostly by genetic variations, with natural selection having little to
do with it:
Jerry Coyne has ripped their analysis pretty well, calling Shapiro and
Newman out as antiselectionists: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/another-antiselectionist-stuart-newman-surfaces-at-puffho/
Unfortunately, Coyne has his
own problems, which stem from the limitations of neo-Darwinism. For instance, he
is a consistent opponent of “group selection”: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/?s=group+selection&searchsubmit=Find+%C2%BB
The jist of that argument is that, if you don’t physically reproduce yourself,
you are nothing in the eyes of evolution. Aunts and uncles have nothing
whatsoever to do with the success of the clan. Us aunts and uncles, however,
know that to be pure BS. In UD, the microcosm of interest can be whatever we
want it to be. The proper analysis is always the univironment: the interaction
between the microcosm and the macrocosm.
As I argued in "The Scientific Worldview," neo-Darwinism is
too limited for its claim to be the mechanism of evolution. At best, it is only
a special case of UD, with its tendency toward myopia quite evident in the “group
selection” debate. Then too, mainstream neo-Darwinists invariably are supporters
of the BBT. They see creationist attacks on the BBT as being anti-evolution and
anti-science, which I suppose they are. They can’t imagine that the BBT could
itself be anti-science. To handle the contradiction posed by their brothers in cosmogony,
neo-Darwinists continue to pose the debate as one between evolution and
creation. It goes much farther than that. It is really between the
deterministic assumption of conservation and the indeterministic
assumption of creation. As accomodationists, the mainstream defends The Fifth
Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion
of matter can be neither created nor destroyed)—whenever it suits them. Neo-Darwinists
typically miss the irony in both defending and attacking
the assumption of creation at the same time.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.
For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:
Nitecruzr writes:
[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?
The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html
Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.
Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.
http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html